Cheryl Schatz

Mark,
Again you misrepresent me. You said:

Cheryl believes that although Eve’s quotation of God’s words was a direct command given to her only, since Adam had already been told what not to eat (Gen 2:17), it is therefore her opinion that Eve did not ‘misquote’ what was already given to Adam.

While I believe that God spoke to the woman before He brought her to the man, since the woman used the plural form, it is apparent that the quote from God was made during the time that they were both together. I take this because of the inspired words. The woman said “you” plural.

Problem-
1.we only have I recorded instance of God’s command not to touch the tree of knowledge. This was given to Adam only (Eve was not created). Therefore the question is raised, how did Eve know. Either Adam told her or God told her. Since we have no recording of God speaking directly and only to Eve, it is far safer to go with the text we have. It is better to assume that Adam told Eve the prohibition not God.

The problem with this is that it is pure speculation on your part. But on my argument, I don’t use speculation, but I use the words that the woman spoke assuming that she was not lying. She said that “God said…” It is her testimony. I haven’t seen why you do not believe her except for the fact that it goes against your own belief. That isn’t good enough for me. We need to work with the text and not ignore it. Right? Since there is nothing said by Eve, God or Adam that Adam told Eve about the prohibition, the only evidence we have who told her is the woman’s testimony itself. That is good enough for me. Why is it not good enough for you?

You said:

Therefore we conclude that Eve did not quote the prohibition correctly. She dropped ‘any’ from “we may eat from the fruit of (any) tree in the garden… This is an important omission since it already shows that God seemingly isn’t as generous as he first was.

There is no evidence at all that this is an omission. The woman was not quoting from what God said to Adam as the plural “you” shows quite clearly. To think that God’s words to the man and the woman were the only words that He spoke to them about anything at all really is naive. The words of Jesus in the NT are not the only words either that He spoke. I have not met anyone yet that thinks that God never spoke a word to Adam and Eve except what is recorded. Do you honestly believe this?

I have already given all the evidence why Eve told the truth in the post where I link to my youtube clips that go through all of this. See the post here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/10/31/women-on-trial/

It is a serious problem to consider that Eve either lied or misrepresented God. God, Eve and Adam never indict Eve for lying or misrepresenting God and for anyone to charge Eve with this sin will have to prove that she was in error without just presuming their own point of view.

Next Eve adds ‘neither shall you touch it’ which is not in the recorded account we have of God’s actual words.

Again, Eve isn’t quoting God’s words to Adam. Did you not read chapter one where God gives them more food to eat than God gave to Adam at his creation? Can you not agree that God can add information any time that He wants to? If God has no freedom to do this, then what is your proof that He cannot add to either the prohibition or to his permission?

This too is important for it now shows that God is crueller than before.

The problem with this, Mark, is that you are assuming your view without proving that Eve sinned by misrepresenting God. The fact is that we do have an account of God saying these words. The account is in the testimony of the woman. Why is it that you cannot accept her testimony? What makes an innocent woman without sin now telling lies and making God seem to be “cruel”? The fact is that it is the serpent who made God cruel, not Eve.

So the serpent’s crafty question has begun to make Eve believe that God first of all is ‘stingy’ and second of all he is a harsh God, not even being allowed to touch the fruit.

You have to impeach Eve of gross sin before you can claim that Eve’s words were not truth.

Mark, could you please interact with the proofs that I gave for why Eve could not possibly have lied? It doesn’t help to assume that she did not tell the truth and go from there. Where did God call Eve a liar?

Now we know that it wasn’t the ‘touching’ of the fruit that caused the fall but the ‘eating’, (Gen 3:6-7) which is precisely what is predicted in Gen 2. So Eve was not correct by telling the serpent they couldn’t even touch it.

It was the eating of the fruit that caused them to die, but they were also forbidden to touch the fruit per Eve’s testimony. If you believe that Eve did not tell the truth, then why did God ignore this sin? Is it a practice of God to ignore sin? What do you say?

Also there is another problem with Cheryl’s view namely that during God’s judgement on Adam God directly refers to the dialogue between himself and Adam in chapter 2. God said “of which I commanded YOU, ‘you shall not eat’. This is not said to Eve because God didn’t give her the direct command.

Since God was talking to Adam alone at this point, He could refer to the command He gave to Adam alone. That was His choice. If you say that “God didn’t give her the direct command” then you are saying that Eve is a liar. Are you allowed to charge her with sin when God did not charge her with this sin?

The blame here is given to Adam as the one given the prohibition but who worse than Eve, still rejected it. Therefore we must conclude that God did not give a new command to Eve, or even if he did give one to both (see below for reason)Adam is still held as the major responsible partner.

This is arguing from silence. You cannot argue that God did not give additional information to Adam and Eve about the prohibition unless you can prove that God viewed Eve as a liar. It is highly important for you to deal with this sin and how God dealt with it. If you say that God didn’t deal with this sin because Adam was the major responsible partner then God shouldn’t have dealt with Eve’s sin at all. She would have been dealt with through Adam. It is a major flaw in your argument that you have God ignoring sin about the lies concerning His own words. That brings your argument down to a very weak point. Very weak. But the Scripture shows that God isn’t silent on sin and He will find those as guilty who add to His word.

It is not good enough to assume something into the text which can not be supported.

Then why do you do this? I have given the testimony of a reliable witness – a sinless Eve whom God does not charge with sin of adding to His words. What evidence do you have for her adding to God’s words? Only that there is no other evidence but Eve’s words. That isn’t good enough Mark, since God is also a witness who never charges her with sin.

An important note- egalitarians are not even agreed on this point. For example in ‘Discovery Biblical Equality’, Richard Hess said this “the reader never learns how the woman received the information that she cites to the snake”.(pg 89) If Cheryl truly believes that Eve was given a specific revelation she should be willing to stand up against other egalitarians to say that they are wrong.

I have done this many times. In fact the very first seminary prof that I shared this with said that he had never seen it before but had always believed the tradition. However after I shared it he could see that tradition didn’t make sense when Eve’s testimony is taken into view. He agreed that there is no evidence at all that she got it wrong or lied about God’s word. The biggest thing for him was that God never contradicted Eve or called her to account for this “sin”. Any many more egalitarians have seen the truth from Eve’s testimony. I encourage any egalitarian I meet to examine the evidence just as I ask you to examine “evidence” not conjecture. Eve’s words are evidence.

On to the next comment.

Mark,
You said:

Cheryl has also told me that although Eve did leave the reason is because her ‘desire is for her husband’ (3:16). Essentially she is fulfilling this prophecy by leaving the garden. Correct me if I am wrong on any of this Cheryl.

No, this is not correct. What I said was that God’s words to the woman would be a good and possible reason for why she left. It makes sense to me, but since the Scripture doesn’t specifically say why she left, it is speculation. You speculation is that she was kicked out even though the text doesn’t say that. It is my speculation that she desired her husband and he took his rule over her to make sure that she was with him. Since these were God’s words, I would think that my speculation has at least some textual evidence while there is no evidence from the text that she was kicked out. It is merely your own speculation.

Mark,

Well so far the internet is holding up so I will try to get through a bit of your points.

Cheryl has said that Eve was ‘deceived’ and Adam sinned ‘wilfully’ (I agree), but Cheryl’s conclusion therefore is that she was no longer a threat to the tree of life.

My conclusion is because the woman did not sin with willful rebellion. Do you agree with me on this? If she did not sin with willful rebellion and she was no longer deceived so she now knows the truth, and God never questions a rebellious action on her behalf, then we have no piece of evidence that the woman would be a threat to the tree of life by rebellion on her behalf. You would have to assume that she had a sin nature of rebellion as Adam had to think this way. I am just going through your comments, so forgive me if you already answered this, but I would like to see specific arguments from the text that show that Eve has a rebellious sin nature.

Mark,
One other thing. You said:

Please re-think your tactics.

I don’t need to use “tactics” as I am only pushing for truth. If I see you wiggling by assuming something that you have not proved, then I will push you. Okay?

Unfortunately I have a very unstable internet connection. I am going to try to answer a comment or two while I still have access.

Mark,
You said:

Cheryl you said the above thing to me again, but then right after it preceeded to address my answer to your question which supposedly i did not answer. Do you get it! You say i am avoiding your question, but then right after that engage with my answer.

Are you serious? The thought that anything that happens must be God’s plan is a “proof” that it was God’s will to name Eve? Honestly I didn’t see the proof. I thought you would be interacting with me from the text and when you did not, all I saw was you failing to answer my question.

You “answer” is conjecture that God ordains everything that happens. If that is the best that you can do, that God ordains the sin of Adam and He ordains that the serpent should deceive the woman, then that is going to be the best you can do. It isn’t good enough for me because I want a real answer from God’s word in the text. I guess that’s why I continue to be an egalitarian and have never been convinced by the comp argument that assumes their own argument from the text without defending it from the text.

Okay, I’ll see what I can do with your original tome.

Again, I love that you continue here with your challenges and arguments. I intend to find the truth from the text with the inspired words and the inspired grammar. If I just assumed my own view, I could not face my own failure. I would need to try harder.

Mark,
Glad to see you on the blog again. I wonder if you read my comments to you that I posted specifically a request that you apologize to Kay. I am glad that you feel free to comment and post challenges. Any view that considers itself as truth will stand up to the challenges. But we do need to make sure that as we answer challenges (as you have tried to do) that you do not become accusatory of someone’s salvation or their being an orthodox believer. This is why I ask you to apologize to Kay.

Anyway good to see some more for me to answer. I love doing that. My response will take some take as we are heading out of country this morning for another important meeting and I won’t be back until late this week. If I get time when we are in our motel room I will start my response. If not my answers will have to wait until the weekend.

Anyone else that wants to work on their apologetic prowess can take Mark on in the meantime. Have fun and be nice to Mark along the way as he is a brother in Christ even if he strongly disagrees with us on the freedom that God gives to women to use their gifts without restriction. My next post may be of great interest to Mark too which won’t likely be up until the weekend as well.

Cheerio, 🙂
Cheryl

lmb,

You are right about the deliberate, willful sin. It was called sinning with a “high hand”. A “high hand” is defiance against God which is what makes it rebellion.

There was a guilt offering for those who sinned unintentionally. The sin of breaking God’s commands because of deception would fall into this category. You are very right in that God’s own testimony it that sinning defiantly with full knowledge is judged differently and more harshly than sinning in deception. For some reason the church seems to be confused about this matter when it comes to women.

pinklight,
You said:

So next we should expect to read something like, “because you were deceived you cannot teach in church. ;P

Well surely this is what some have come to read in the Scriptures. Deception seems to create a category of the permanently impaired. This gives no opportunity for God’s grace and it makes God seem like an unfair judge who punishes the deceived rather than the outright rebellious one.

This all reminds me of the one who is still roaming around looking for whom he may devour. He still distorts God’s word, looking to bring people into bondage and using God’s word for bondage is his favorite trick. When we have our eyes opened and we are aware of his tricks and we know and understand scripture, we are armed and ready for his attacks so that we can send him running. Satan will flee when we stand up to him with the truth of God’s word.

kw,

God foreseeing that Adam would sin made sure that all of us came through him after his sin so that all of us would be in the same boat of inherited sin and thus all of us followed that nature and all have sinned.

Galatians 3:22–23 (NASB)
22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.

What this plan of God’s did was to make sure that we would all be on an equal footing – all needing God’s grace. If some of us had been born perfect before Adam fell and some had been born after Adam fell, then there would be some who would have their perfection and their works to their credit. But God has no favorites. He wanted all of us to need Him and to gain salvation in the same way. Because sin entered the world and all of us have participated in that sin all of us are forced to come to Him through the same narrow way. We must come through faith in Jesus so that there will be no boasting that any of us made it through works.

While it seems like an unfair thing that God brought us through a sinful man so that even without having committed Adam’s sins we would all be prone to sin and “shut up under sin” but God’s plan makes sure that there are no favorites. All are under sin. All come to Him in the same way. All need Him for none of us has righteousness that would “earn” salvation. God’s plan is perfect and I believe that in eternity future we will all understand God’s plan perfectly so that we can give Him praise for what He has done.

Hillary,
You are welcome and thanks for your kind comments!

PK,

Thanks for your comments and welcome to my blog! I do believe that God has given us all authority to use our gifts and the body of Christ needs to submit to the gifts that God gives in order for them to grow and be protected from spiritual danger. The problem is that many are not like you and do not see authority as a responsibility to protect and serve the body but rather as a way to demand respect and demand their own way by requiring people to follow them by the means of their authority instead of by the reason of their example as one who fulfills a calling to feed the sheep. When the “shepherd” becomes the focus instead of the service to the sheep, “authority” and “leadership” can become so distorted that it becomes a way to abuse the sheep instead of feed and protect them. Then the term “leader” becomes an abusive term and we all want to stay away from that.

However if a true “leader” has only the welfare of the sheep in mind and a deep love love for the body of Christ, that kind of leadership will naturally be welcomed because the sheep will hear by the example the good Shepherd’s voice.

PK that was a wonderful testimony that you gave about your wife’s abilities. Praise the Lord for a man who is not threatened by a godly woman who operates in her giftedness!

Hi Dr. Willingham,
Thanks for your comments on this subject. I am glad that you dropped in. Also to let you know I have been delayed in completing my book, but I have not forgotten about you. I will provide you with a copy for your comments for either the foreword or the back endorsements. I have thought about you a lot lately as my focus is going onto finish my written work. Your support for my defense of women in ministry is greatly appreciated!

Mark,
You said:

Naming her was the mans responsibility.

Sigh! Where does it say that in text? There is no authority or responsibility given in the text. Or do you think that just repeating the same thing over and over again will make it a fact?

God did not say “here Adam this is woman”, nor did God say to the woman “you are woman”. God gave the identification naming to Adam. Only after he did that does the woman know her identity (i.e where she came from and why she was created)

Isn’t it interesting that you can claim that God didn’t say something and then claim that God did give Adam authority to name the woman when those words are not in the text. And to assume that God said nothing to the woman about her identity before He brought her to the man is unprovable and unlikely. You mean that God has to keep silent after He creates the woman and He is not allowed to talk to her while the man sleeps? Oh really?

I am not saying God did not create a woman nor know she was a woman, simply that the responsibility of calling her woman was given to Adam.

You statements are not proof. Give proof of this “responsibility” given by God. Where is it stated? At least you admit that she was a woman before she was brought to Adam, but do you realize that in admitting this fact, that her identity had to come from God and not man?

God created a woman. However her identity is only revealed to the man and the woman after God brings her to him to call her something. Adam calls her woman because he recognises where she has come from- man.

Where does the Bible say that God brings the woman to the man to “call her something”? I think you are confused with the animals. You seem to have missed that God moved on to something far greater than the animals and He treated the woman as His image, not the same as the animals.

10. Finally “Please prove your point. Where does it say that it was “God’s plan for the man to name the woman”. Please give me the inspired words that reveal this in the text.”

This is a big one. So are you denying that it was God’s plan for the man to name the woman. Yes or No?

So you are not going to answer my question again? I asked you to prove your point and you are not going to wiggle out of it. Please prove your point. Where does it say that God gave Adam the authority to name her to rule over her to subdue her or any other terms of rulership? Where is this in the text?????

And yes i did get a revelation that it was God’s plan to name the woman- its called the Bible.

Amen! It was God’s plan to create and identify the woman as woman.

The bible says that Adam named the woman and since i believe that God is sovereign and that nothing happens apart from his will, then yes it was his plan for the man to name the woman.

That is a copout. So God willed the serpent to deceive the woman? And God willed Adam to disobey God? Or do you really mean that God allows things?

The fact is that God allowed Adam to identify with the woman as his own. That does not mean that the woman had no identity until Adam called her woman. That would be a non sequitur.

If it wasn’t his plan, it wouldn’t of happened. The fact that this is the inspired word of God, and the fact that this event happened, shows that this was God’s plan.

So it was God’s plan for Cain to kill Abel and for Satan to rebel and it is God’s plan for me not to believe you? Surely if God must ordain all then the fact that I do not see this in the text means that He has ordained it, right? Then why are you trying to change my mind when God has planned that your arguments will fall to the ground?

Now im not sure if you were pulling a bluff with your comment. But i would really like to know if you don’t think it was God’s plan for the man to name the woman. Please answer this question at least.

It must not be in God’s plan for me to answer your question. Right? That is your position isn’t it? After all you have not yet given me the chapter and verse where God gives a rule of the man over his wife or where God gives Adam authority to name his wife a name that she is unaware of and which does not yet belong to her. I surely must not be in God’s plan for you to fail to give the biblical reference and then demand an answer from me?

Mark, Mark, Mark what are we going to do with you? Your theology has colored the text and you can explain it all away by saying all that is done is God’s plan. Then how do you explain this:

Jeremiah 7:31 (NASB)
31 “They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind.

How is everything in God’s plan when He Himself says that it isn’t? He never commanded the sacrificing of these babies and it didn’t even come into His mind?

Oh boy, I stayed up later than I thought. But I did get through all of your points. Back to you to get through the questions I have asked you.

Cheerio my friend.

Mark,

I am wondering if this long set of questions its the tome that you were wanting to write on my blog?

Continuing with your points, you said:

When have i ever denied that God formed the woman? Please show me. What i have said all along is that verse 22 does not say that “God called her woman” as you so matter of factly stated earlier.

If God built the woman then God’s building identified who she was by the fact that He identified through the inspired author what He had created. You have not answered this and I doubt that you can. God could have refrained from identifying her in the text as woman, but He did not. That is a problem to your view.

The literature is narrative- it is a description of what occurred, it is not a quote of God’s.

It doesn’t need to be a direct quote, don’t you see that? The fact that God wrote it and identified who she was made as (woman) is attributed to God. And when God inspired the description of what occurred, then it is exactly as it was described. It is not in error. She was woman at her creation. The inspiration does not need a direct quote to be true.

Since when does “God formed a woman”= God identifies/names a woman. This isn’t logic, it’s word dribbling.

Word dribbling??? Mark, I think you must have run out of arguments. Calling my arguments “names” isn’t a valid argument nor does it deal with my points. Where does God give Adam authority over his wife or authority to rule her? Where are your proofs? Or is asking for proof merely “word dribbling” to you when you are unable to prove your point?

Mark,
You said:

I simply believe that historical relevance is all important in understanding the bible. After all if we reject that, how can we possible claim to know what a word even means. If you say that understanding Hebraic naming is irrelevant, then by necessity you should deny any understanding of what ‘ezer kenego’ can possibly mean.

Mark, you mixing apples with oranges. I am not denying the historical relevance of words. I have been arguing for the meaning of the inspired words in the text, but there is no such authority in the culture for naming of a wife by a husband and I wish you would just quit with this argument. It is not only irrelevant to the text, but it isn’t a correct cultural argument over words. Show me from the culture where the husband proved his authority by naming his wife?

I could simply follow your line of logic and say it is irrelevant what ‘helper’ means outside of Gen 2. Do you see the problem. You are picking and choosing which Hebrew things help your supposed argument. It is inconsistent.

Not true. I am not dismissing the meaning of words. That is not my “line of logic” so it is unfair of you to characterize my argument this way. The meaning of words has absolutely nothing to do with a claimed authority given to a man. Neither is there historical precedence for men to name their wives, Hebrew or otherwise. Your point is not supported at all by any proof. And me? I have kept to the text with the inspired words and the inspired grammar.

Mark,
You said:

4. I am not trying to offend or attack you with the Islamic relations. But your deliberate denial of historical relevance is not proper scholarly exegesis.

Mark, I would ask you to deal with the issues and not bring in inappropriate connections with non-Christians. Also I have taken a lot of time to carefully explain why the historical account of the actual events of the creation account in Genesis is dependent on the account and the inspired words and inspired grammar and it is not dependent on any man-made culture. God created Genesis for all of us and if He wanted us to understand His own actions within a sub-culture of people who would live thousands of years later, then He would have created that within the text. I believe that it is unwise to add in a cultural position that is not stated in the text especially since it causes contradiction with the issue of “naming” later in the book of Genesis when a woman names God. One either must be consistent here or drop the unsupported assignment of authority when God refused to record about any additional authority given to just one of the two world rulers.

Mark,
You said:

I understand that essentially you are saying that because the narrative says “he made into a woman” (Gen 2:22), that this narrative is identifying her as ‘woman’ and thus God calls her woman before the man. But it’s just dancing around the obvious. Yes God created her, but the job of calling her something was given to the man.

Give me the proof that God gave the job to Adam? Also give me the proof that God identifying her as woman at her creation is unimportant and in essence is laid aside so that the man can name her?

2. The sentence structure is the same as with the other animals. …To get hung-up on the narrative description of what God has made misses the point. The emphasis of the passage is not on that, it is on the declaration of the man- this is what is being stressed, not the narrative.

Mark, you appear to be man-centered instead of God centered. To make God’s creation and identification as secondary to the man and then to insist that the purpose of God bringing her was to have Adam name her instead of a marriage joining the two by God makes the center of everything as man. Don’t you see the problem in making all of the text as man-centered?

I am not saying God is ignorant of what he has made, simply that we do not have a quote before the man’s declaration that says “God said “you are called woman”.

We don’t need a direct quote from God when the inspired text tells us what God made and how He made her. Her creation is the words of God spoken through the agency of a man, but no less the inspired words of God.

Therefore God allows the man to name the woman, the same way he allowed the man to name all the other animals.

God allows the man to identify the woman with himself, but God doesn’t need Adam to name her since He has already done that by His act of creation. Don’t you see that this is different from the way He dealt with the animals. He did not identify the animals as giraffe, dog, cat. Adam did that. But God did identify the woman. He is the source of her ultimate creation. She is in the image of God first and then image of man second.

This does not mean that i am saying God did not know what he created, nor that he knew what Adam would call her, simply it was Adams role to declare to both the woman and himself what her identification was.

Where does the text say that this was Adam’s “role”? Where does it say that it was “for this reason” that God brought her to Adam?

I will break this comment here and continue on the next comment.

Gazza,
You said:

I would not for a second say that Adam had authority over the animals in the same way he had authority over Eve – so there is no surprise that there is a difference here.

But where do you get an explicit authority given by God to Adam from the text? Not only is the authority not explicitly given over the woman, it is explicitly given for the animals. How can you read a “difference” in Adam’s authority when his authority over the woman is never explicitly given or compared to the authority given over the animals?

But none the less naming in Hebrew society does carry an authority.

Then surely Hagar must have exercise her authority over God because she named Him.

What happened at creation is not bound by Hebrew society. But as Genesis was written by a Hebrew for Hebrews, Hebrew society is significant.

The book of 1 Timothy is explicitly written by Paul to Timothy. That isn’t a secret. But where are you getting this from the text that the book of Genesis was written just for Hebrews? Can you not see that the book was written for all of us as the record of the works of God in creation and the history of man? Who convinced you that it was written merely for Hebrews? Which part of the text says that?

It is the context in which the original and true meaning of Gods inspired word was written into. Just as we need to translate the Hebrew words into our language we need to consider what those words meant in their Hebrew context to correctly translate the meaning conveyed to our Western mindset.

The problem with this is that complementarians are reading part of Hebrew culture into the text when God did not say that man’s culture interprets His acts? And where is the Hebrew culture of naming one’s wife? The strength of the argument must be reasonable from the inspired text right from Genesis. The complementarian position reveals its greatest weakness in trying to force man’s tradition into the creation account. It cannot be done without violence to the text.

Mark,
You said to Kay:

We know polygamy is wrong because the Jesus tells us that. Naming on the other hand is something God gave Adam to do so therefore it cannot be considered wrong, unless you wish to dispute that.

This is only half the story. We need to pay attention to what the text actually says. God gave Adam the task of naming the animals, but there is not a shred of proof that He gave the man the task of naming the woman. When complementarians claim something like this without any evidence that God gave this to Adam, they show the weakness of their argument. There is no real argument unless they read into the text. With this kind of argument, how could you ever convince Bible believing Christians that the complementarian position is the truth from Genesis? When you have to read into the text and give an authority where no authority is given, your position is weak and unsustainable.

Mark, I see you as a highly intelligent young man. I am continually amazed at how such an intelligent young man can hold to views that have to be read into the text. It just amazes me. It seems to me that you have become convinced of a position before you even came to Genesis. Otherwise how could you possibly equate the woman with the animals and make Adam a ruler of the animals and the woman when God gave no such authority to Adam over her?

Mark,
You said:

I disagree Pinklight that Adam naming Eve didn’t give her some identity. The fact that ”isshah’, is th feminine form of ”ish’ is significant, since the poetry of the chapter says that he called her ‘woman’ BECAUSE she was made from ‘man’. The very reason Adam gives her that name is because of how she is made, namely his own rib.

The problem with this is that God had already identified this before Adam did. It is in the text and the verses have not changed position since I last looked at them. This is not a slip up of God’s. i.e. it is not God’s mistake that He identified how and what the woman was before He brought her to Adam. It was intentional as God always intended that woman would not be made from the dirt but from the man. She is to be the glory of the man.

Therefore the name ‘woman’ suggests immense identity (not saying that that wasn’t God’s plan though). It identifies how she was made and why she was made (not good for man to be alone and to make a one flesh union).

It is immense identity. But it is God’s identity and God’s plan not man’s. It was God who planned to create her from his body therefore the immense identity of the whole thing originates with God not with man. It was God who intended a one flesh union and that is why marriage is so important even today. Man didn’t originate the joining together with her. God did. And it is that God part that forbids man to break apart what God has joined.

To simply diminish the significance of naming the woman, reduces the very words of the passage and there significance.

Not true. For God to identify her by creating her from the man and then have her called woman even before He brought her to the man does not diminish the significance of her name. In fact it is a double significance because it is what God created and His plan and man’s complete acceptance of God’s plan. If you remove God’s part that was planned in advance and carried on without having man as part of the plan, it is of great significance that man admits that God’s sovereign will is the very best. And he even does it with poetry.

If she had not been made in this precise way, and named in this way she would have no identity of ‘woman’ since her identity is based around her creation from the ‘man’.

But you fail to see that it is creation from the man but not BY the man. Do you see the difference? God used the man as the basis of the woman, but man did not originate the idea or the plan or the way. It is only because it was in the mind of God that it was a perfect plan.

Where as man (‘adam’) finds it’s identity in the ground from which he was made (ha’adam) and to which he returns after the fall. These are important points that need to be addressed by egals not just rejected because of 2:22

No, my friend, Adam’s identity is not in the dirt. His identity is in the image of God. His return to the dirt is the result of the fall not the plan of God.

Gazza,

You asked pinklight:

What do you think of the narrator specifically not saying God named Eve woman but leaving that for Adam?

The narrator through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote that God created the woman. He specifically could have left out the fact of what God created so that the man could have named her in the way that he named the animals. With the animals, it says that God brought them to see what Adam would name them. But this is not so with the woman. God creates her with an identity that Adam does not originate, even though Adam agrees with God’s identity to the tee. If God wanted to report to us that He wanted to see what Adam would name the woman then that would have been reported. In this account the woman is already identified by her creation and she is brought for marriage not for naming.

Again the beasts of the field and the birds of the air does reveal as much as can be said about their natures in a plural form whereas Eve is the only woman.

“Beasts of the field” is not their name. It is intentional that God gave the man something to do that was not already accomplished for Him by God. But it is also intentional that God identified the woman by creating her from the man. He didn’t need to “see what Adam would call her”. His purpose was unity not naming. When people try to put the woman into the same category as the beasts they degrade the woman, the man who she came from and God whose image she also reflects.

I am yet to be convinced that the narrator really distinguishes different levels of designation here.

Then are you admitting that the woman is in the category of the beast? Or can you see that God’s purpose for bringing the woman to Adam was not the same purpose as He brought the animals unless you are also willing to accept that God would have married Adam to a brute beast if Adam would have liked any of them. No, the animals are not in the image of God and only the one in the image of God was right for Adam. The woman is in the class of the God image, not in the class of the beast and she is a delegated ruler of the beasts. There is far more differences between the ones brought to Adam then there are similarities.

As to Hebrew culture I would think that context for which Genesis was initially written was entirely Hebrew and thus the connotations of naming should be taken as the original intended audience would understand them – whether or not Adam and Eve spoke Hebrew themselves.

The book of Genesis is not just written for the Hebrews but for mankind for all of time. Secondly the naming of God in the book of Genesis should be a red flag that naming someone is not taking authority over them. I would think that Complementarians need to be consistent or drop a bad argument that devalues the woman as one made to be ruled.

pinklight,

And it is the question because she was already designated as woman before she was brought to the man whereas on the other hand the animals were NOT designated as tigers, lions and bears before they were brought to the man.

Good point.

Gazza,

You said:

. I don’t see how God in making Eve a woman detracts from the significance of Adam naming her. Surely the fact that in the text it is Adam and not God who actually names Eve that Mark is saying is significant.

Actually the issue that we have been discussing is not the name “Eve” but the issue of Adam calling her “woman”. What we have been arguing is that God identifies her by identifying what He made and by the way that He made her which identifies exactly what she is. The issue of Adam calling her “Eve” is outside the issue of the original sinless creation so it wouldn’t identify whether God gave Adam authority over the woman in the beginning which is a major issue.

No one would argue that Adam in anyway created Eve or her nature but rather that in naming Eve Adam is asserting his understanding that he is in a position of leadership over her (according to our understanding of the signficance of naming in Hebrew culture).

Gengwall brought up a great point that no husband named his wife so there is no historical significance in a husband naming his wife.

Plus if it was truly a significance of naming in the Hebrew culture, then what about the Scripture that says that Hagar named God?

Genesis 16:13 (NASB)
13 Then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, “You are a God who sees”; for she said, “Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?”

It certainly was the same author that had Adam name Eve, so is Hagar now taking authority over God since the author recorded the naming? If we really are going to identify naming as taking authority over a person, then we need to understand the serious problems with this view even in Genesis.

Gods silence in not naming the woman could be seen as an assertion of this role.

God wasn’t silent. In chapter 1 He called both of them “Adam” and in chapter 2 He identified her as the woman. Apparently God didn’t see any need to give her another name as He didn’t see any need to give Adam another name.

This would be true despite Pinklights observations that God made Eve according to Gods own design for woman would it not?

We are talking about the term “woman”. And if we were to deal with the idea of the mother of the living, God Himself identified that she would be the mother of the Messiah who we know as The Life so mother of the living would be God’s idea before it became man’s idea.

could this not be that the animals are plural – many different types where as Eve was a singular entity. Adam no more made the animals or their nature than he did Eve.

She wasn’t called Eve when God brought her to the man and she was not in the class of the animals. She was not just another animal brought to Adam. It is interesting that those who believe in evolution describe humans as a type of animal. This is not God’s plan as only humans are made in God’s image.

pinklight,
You asked:

Did God make lions tigers and bears? Or did he make animals (that were named by Adam)?
Did God make woman? Or did he make a female that was named by Adam?
God gave identity/name to the woman but not the animals (Adam gave identity/names to the animals).

God made “animals” and then God brought them to the man (for the purpose of) see(ing) what the man would call each type of animal.

It is interesting that God never identified His bringing the woman to the man as having a purpose of seeing what man would call her. God already had an identity for the woman and a plan to cause the man to understand that she was to be considered his flesh and blood.

The Bible does not say that God made a female and brought her to Adam to see what he would call her. We cannot assume that the bringing of the bride was for the same reason as the bringing of the animals. That would not make sense at all.

It is true that God identified the woman by identifying what He made and in the way that He made her as the source of her origin is what her name means.

Hey Craig,
Glad you purchased my DVDs. Now I know which Craig you are! I think you will find the DVDs very helpful especially because they deal with this subject in a very visual manner.

Now as far as Titus 1:5-9 this is very similar to 1 Timothy 3 where Paul makes sure that women are included by saying “likewise women”. However in the Titus passage the translators have put chapter divisions that were not there in the original so you have to keep reading through to the next chapter to see women included.

Titus 2:3 (NASB)
3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good,

In Titus 1:5 Paul says that Titus was left behind to appoint “presbyteros” (elders) and in chapter 2 Paul gives the qualifications for men Titus 2:2 and then for women Titus 2:3. It is worthy of note that Paul only identifies the requirement of being a teacher to the women, but we can understand that the entire list works for all as Paul connects the different peoples (men, women, young men) with the terms “likewise” in verses 3 & 6 so we can understand that the qualifications are all about moral character and maturity. Once again we see that Paul not only includes women, but in the qualification he never says that women are “forbidden” to be presbyteros.

Also another note is that when men and women are included in the same group the grammar rule is that the masculine term is used. This means that the Greek term presbyteros is the masculine grammar but the masculine plural is not meant to exclude women. In fact it clearly includes women by Paul putting the qualifications together with the men and saying “likewise”.

I hope this helps.

I have some questions for those who believe that Adam calling his wife “woman” means that he took authority over her. Can you please tell me why God would leave such an important doctrine to private interpretation? Why didn’t God clearly say that He was giving Adam authority over Eve and why didn’t God clearly say that Adam was to take this authority by “naming” Eve? Why would God clearly tell us that Adam was to have authority over the animals but then leave it to us to figure out, assume, postulate, etc that Adam had some kind of authority over the woman that was or was not like the authority Adam had over the animals? Is God not able to be clear on this important area of delegated authority? If not why not?

Sorry for just popping in for a bit, but another busy day. I look forward to the comp answers.

Mark #83,
You asked:

1. So you do believe that quote ‘the man’ is ONLY refering to Adam and that it is not refering to Eve in the banishment.

Yes. Only Adam sinned deliberately, only Adam brought sin into the world and only Adam was made from the ground so it could only be “the Adam” the one man who was driven out of the garden to work the ground that he was made from. Is that clear enough?

2. I am understanding that you only believe in the one sin nature (from Adam). Sin is attributed to Adam, and therefore Eve did not have a different sin nature to Adam.

This is worded rather awkwardly. The Bible never says that Eve had a sin nature and we know that Eve did not bring sin into the world and none of her descendants inherited a sin nature from her. They all inherited the sin nature from Adam. The sin nature is the nature of rebellion. Eve did not have that. If you disagree you will have to show me from the Scriptures your proof.

3. This was quite clear that you DO believe that Eve was not a threat to the tree of life- even as a sinner. Thanks

Eve is not called “a sinner” but she did sin. She fell into sin through deception. She did not have a nature of rebellion and she could not have inherited that nature from Adam since she was created before he sinned. There is no evidence that Eve would have deliberately rebelled against God after Adam fell.

4. Again it was clear that you believe 3:16 is propheticaly fulfilled by Eve ‘following’ Adam out of the garden. You therefore reject she was banished. Thanks

I am saying that Eve was not banished from the garden as she was not in rebellion. God gave a prophesy to Eve in Genesis 3:16. This prophesy can be helpful to understand why Eve left the garden. Is this helpful?

5. Again i understand that you believe that this quote of Eve’s was a direct revelation to her seperate to the one given to Adam in Gen 2. Thanks. One last thing- was this quote that Eve gave, given to her ONLY or to her and Adam in your opinion?

God spoke to Adam directly when there was only Adam and God. There was also a time that the woman was alone with God. There is no doubt that He spoke to her then. However it appears that the words that the woman quoted to the serpent were a prohibition given to both of them because the direct quote uses the plural form not the singular.

Sorry for the slow answer. I have to try and talk here only after i complete my other work.

Ditto. I am often awol for long periods of time too so I fully understand the term “busy”. I am hoping that things will settle down for me because I have a book to write and right now I don’t have time to work on that project.

Also i want to try and give a comprehensive answer so that i am not continually told that i am avoiding questions. I’m sure you understand

Great! I have met too many complementarians who practiced being evasive, so I will take you at your word that you are going to try hard not to be seen as avoiding the questions. Also it is very commnendable that you are trying hard to understand so that you don’t misrepresent my point of view.

pinklight,

You said:

If Adam had not spoken at the sight of her, she still would have been exactly what 1:22 says she was – a woman. She still would have been what God created – a woman. Adam’s recognition doesn’t change a thing and if he hadn’t said a word, that still wouldn’t have changed a thing because she was already identified in 1:22.

You are exactly right! God’s identification of the woman was all that was really needed. God already showed that He created her from Adam’s flesh and bone and that she was called woman. There is nothing that is added by Adam’s words except for the fact that he accepted her as his own. Other than that we know nothing more about the woman then we did in verse 22.

You are constantly helping us to keep sharp on the text. Good going!

Gazza,
You asked:

If you are going to post in more depth on this in future I won’t press you too hard now but it has always seemed to me that “”I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children.” was a punishment. If not how is it fair that someone innocent suffers directly from the hand of God? This is not the just God that I am familiar with, what am I missing here?

There is a way to understand the text with the exact words used that can help us to understand what God was doing to the woman and why it was not a punishment. Your questions are very worthwhile questions and deserve a whole post to address them. I will try to get to it either next post of the one after that. I think you will find the information thought-provoking.

It has been a long day for me, but I am going to try to answer as much as I can before I head for bed.

Mark,
You said:

I have no problem saying that God was in control of what Adam said and knew what he said.

Who said that God “was in control” of what Adam said? There is nothing in the text that says God whispered to Adam about what to say. I think the passage speaks for itself when Adam exclaims “at last!” and describes this amazing creature in front of him as his “flesh and bone”. He spoke with his own reasoning while acknowledging what God had done with His unique creation.

Sorry if I already commented on this one, but I can’t remember where I left off.

You said:

How can you assume that I am saying God had nothing to do with what Eve’s identity when the words you quote me on say the opposite. OF course God knew Eve before Adam did. The text simply shows that it was also God’s plan for the man to name the woman. I wonder with some of your comments Cheryl.

The text does not say that it was God’s plan for the man to name the woman. I really wonder which version of the Bible that you are reading. Your claims are not in any of the Bible versions that I have access to.

You seem to be throwing ‘identity’ around a lot now. If you have changed your opinion of what you said about verse 22 just admit it. We are on the same page that God’s plan existed before any human- just don’t ignore the way God uses human instruments to fulfil his purposes.

I haven’t changed at all. I just want to pay attention to the text so that I am not deceived by false interpretations. I don’t ignore when God uses human instruments. I just don’t want to add in an inter-mediator where there is none.

Yes, lets do that and not say God called her woman before the man which is clearly not in the text.

The text clearly says that God created her as a woman. If you disagree then please show me what she was created as if not the woman who was taken from Adam’s flesh. I cannot ignore God’s identifying her as woman even though you don’t seem to have a problem with ignoring this fact.

This is interesting! You want to support your view with the idea about prophetic naming and the like, yet you try and ignore the Hebrew culture in which naming was authoritative, but apparently this is a nuance.

Listen, here is the deal – we don’t have to guess what the meaning is when God clearly states the facts. Who gave Adam authority over the animals? Since God says that He gave this authority to the male and the female, we don’t have to guess about authority given. It is stated clearly and directly. But who gave the woman authority over the man? Well we could speculate and say that if the woman gave the fruit to the man, this must mean that she has authority over him.

The problem with this kind of speculation is that authority cannot be taken without it being directly given no matter what the culture said. This is an issue of God. He is Sovereign and no one has the right to have any kind of authority unless He gives it.

Romans 13:1 (ESV)
Submission to the Authorities
13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

John 19:11 (ESV)
11 Jesus answered him, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.”

Matthew 28:18 (NASB)
18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

If authority has to be granted, then please show me how Adam got an authority over his wife without it being given to him? While God gave Adam and Eve authority over the animals and authority over the earth, He never gave Eve authority over Adam or Adam authority over Eve. If you believe differently then the burden of proof is on you. Show the verse that says that God granted Adam authority over his wife.